Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 283 posts

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#211

Post by brandmeyer »

laumars wrote: post #179
roywiggins wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the point of view of the bicyclist, it can be a close shave with actually dying, even if they're physically unharmed.

I've been a cyclist for around 30 years and have been a victim of plenty of accidents in that time. So I don't make my comments without regard for cyclists. However my cycling experience is limited to UK roads. It might be the case that roads in the US are, in general, more dangerous for cyclists -- I'm not suggesting that is true but I'd be interested to know if that was the case.

FWIW, there is a very wide variation in both the bicycle-worthiness of roads, and the bicycle-friendliness of drivers in the US. It really isn't possible to generalize any individual's experience to the whole country.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#212

Post by prepend »

mikepurvis wrote: post #191
prepend wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we should allow cars to roll through stop signs. I think it’s comical because here’s the laws broken by cyclists every day- running stop signs, right turn on red without stopping, turning without signalling, running red lights, using phone, using headphones. I typically don’t care because bikes aren’t very dangerous to cars. But I think it’s comical that a cyclist thinks they citizen reported traffic citation…

Using a phone or headphones while riding a bike is idiotic, but for these: > running stop signs, right turn on red without stopping, turning without signalling, running red lights It's important to understand a few things: a) A person on a bike is 1000x more vulnerable than a person in a car, and will definitely lose (physically, legally) if they misjudge the situation and end up getting struck. b) A person on a bike…

I actually am not bothered by your transgressions. But I’m not bothered by a car rolling through a stop sign either. It was more of a “pot calling kettle black scenario” that I thought was curious because a cyclist was trying to enforce a petty offense while also committing petty offenses.

It’s hard for me to understand the situation of all other drivers. So I’m not going out of my way to judge them when I have incomplete information. If a driver is doing something reckless or dangerous I will try to prevent it by alerting authorities.

I’m more in favor of eliminating minor traffic offenses and having police work on important issues. Or even free a community up to not have as many police and perhaps have more teachers or other civil servants.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#213

Post by wpietri »

krick wrote: post #161
fpgaminer wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who tends to fall on the side of privacy more often than not, I'm actually not sure how I feel about facial recog+home security cameras. I'm completely against any fully automated system where the police can have access to the camera's data. But on the other hand, what if the system was implemented completely locally, and all with the owner's control and permission? So your Ring app pops up and says "Hey,…

> So your Ring app pops up and says "Hey, your local police department is looking for a suspect and your camera spotted them. Would you like to share the footage?". This doesn't sound ok at all. I won't delve into a thousand reasons why I don't like the idea, but let's just start with that answering "no" to that question can be easily treated as the obstruction of justice. So, to cut it short, if I'm not volunteering…

I don't think that's anything like obstruction of justice under US law. If you were right, then so too would be recognizing a face from a wanted poster and not calling the police.

It isn't even obstruction of justice if they explicitly ask you something and you refuse to respond: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/what-do-when-encounter...

So I don't see how not responding to a question they didn't ask could be illegal.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#214

Post by wpietri »

laumars wrote: post #162
majormajor wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The gap between these mistakes causing harm and not causing harm is basically just luck. The less careful we are even when the mistake doesn't cause harm, the more frequently we'll make the mistake. Some feedback that made people be more careful, and pay more attention, would be good . And at a larger level: if we can't be bothered to be that careful (or simply can't at all), and want to be allowed to not be that car…

Obviously I agree that bad drivers deserve little sympathy. But not all human errors are down to bad drivers nor a lack of care. > The less careful we are even when the mistake doesn't cause harm, the more frequently we'll make the mistake. Some feedback that made people be more careful, and pay more attention, would be good. That only works if mistake are concious. My point is mistakes can be unintended like rowdy k…

> That only works if mistake are concious.

I don't think that's true at all. Indeed, feedback and fear of consequences are two things that drive people to become conscious. Both of mistakes and of the potential for mistakes.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#215

Post by mikepurvis »

rconti wrote: post #180
majormajor wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The gap between these mistakes causing harm and not causing harm is basically just luck. The less careful we are even when the mistake doesn't cause harm, the more frequently we'll make the mistake. Some feedback that made people be more careful, and pay more attention, would be good . And at a larger level: if we can't be bothered to be that careful (or simply can't at all), and want to be allowed to not be that car…

Actually, the vast majority of traffic collisions require 2 parties to not be paying attention, but only one of whom has to actually make a mistake; I wouldn't consider the 2nd person failing to avoid the accident as a matter of luck.

This is part of why the "share the road" and "all have a role to play" narratives are so offensive to people who cycle and walk. The people choosing these active transportation options are already overwhelmingly the ones picking up the slack and preventing driver inattention and carelessness from becoming serious crashes.

We don't get a choice in this— we do it because the alternative is being killed in the street, and then when people actually are hit, we get to hear smarmy commentary about how it wouldn't have happened if they'd just looked both ways, or been wearing brighter clothing, or chosen a different time of day to go out for a walk:

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/03/12/we-need-to-change-the...

But it's hard to even build a case out of this that will be accepted by people who don't have that first hand experience of being the vulnerable road user. Most places in North America, small driver errors are only barely punished if at all, and there's pretty much universally zero effort to track close calls involving people walking and cycling.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#216

Post by godelski »

laumars wrote: post #130
mikepurvis wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a four season bike commuter, and have been wearing a helmet cam for the past year or so— it's just breathtaking the amount of small violations I catch on camera: I don't even go looking for them or dwell at hotspots, and I pick up probably 5-10 instances per week of things like cars turning right on red without fully stopping, going through stop signs without fully stopping, not fully yielding to pedestrians in c…

Reporting someone for minor traffic offences if they caused an accident is the right thing to do but reporting people for the sake of reporting people is a little unsympathetic. I've lost count of the number of times I've misjudged a situation because kids were screaming in the back of the car, I'm stressed about something at work and had the briefest laps in concentration; or even times when I just have a complete b…

I don't think it's hard to see the flexibility. But I think it depends what kind of person you are. Do you think laws are social constructs or rules that must be followed? I for one am in the former camp. Laws were constructed to keep us safe as a society. I do like living in a safe society, but let's be real that laws and up being catch all's and can be abused.

As an example: Jay walking across an empty street. It's great in many places and times, but others it's a hindrance and just so we frequently break it. But when I was in high school I remember at the end of the month cops would cite kids crossing a not so busy street with a fair walk to the crosswalk. Who cares? Such a thing isn't important and doesn't make us safer. We don't even correct our behavior when caught doing those things because we don't even recognize them as wrong.

So yeah, I agree. We need to be flexible as a society. No one likes sticklers or narcs.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#217

Post by mdorazio »

kaikai wrote: post #183
mdorazio wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd support this if my in-car dashcam can do the same for cyclists such as yourself. Driving in Portland I see at least that many moving violations by cyclists on a regular basis as well. And that's the problem with proposals like these - everyone is in favor of them until they realize that they might be on the receiving end as well. If you support a position like this, make sure you support it for everyone , not jus…

Any time someone brings out the “bicyclists break laws, too” argument I’m surprised to hear what people think the laws actually are. I’ve heard people complain about bicyclists taking the full lane, using the turn lane to turn left instead of crossing at a crosswalk, moving to the front of the line at stoplights, etc as broken laws. Turns out, they’re not. Just because something might slightly inconvenience you as a…

In any random week I see the following at a minimum: failure to stop at stop signs, running red lights completely, riding on the sidewalk, riding against traffic, failure to yield to pedestrians, failure to signal a turn, failure to use lights and/or reflectors after dark, illegal parking, speeding (yes, really - speed limits here are often 20 and cyclists with electric motors are often going 25+).

Bicyclists should not get special rules. If you're on wheels, you obey the laws for vehicles. I say this as someone who cycles frequently - the cyclist "special privilege" mindset needs to stop.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#218

Post by xmprt »

wpietri wrote: post #213
krick wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So your Ring app pops up and says "Hey, your local police department is looking for a suspect and your camera spotted them. Would you like to share the footage?". This doesn't sound ok at all. I won't delve into a thousand reasons why I don't like the idea, but let's just start with that answering "no" to that question can be easily treated as the obstruction of justice. So, to cut it short, if I'm not volunteering…

I don't think that's anything like obstruction of justice under US law. If you were right, then so too would be recognizing a face from a wanted poster and not calling the police. It isn't even obstruction of justice if they explicitly ask you something and you refuse to respond: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/what-do-when-encounter... So I don't see how not responding to a question they didn't ask could be il…

It's a blurred line though. If the police know that the perpetrator was in line of sight of your camera and they knew you had the footage, then not giving it to them is a lot closer to obstruction of justice than the example you gave. I'm no lawyer but I'm sure a competent one would be able to argue either side.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#219

Post by kortilla »

xmprt wrote: post #218
wpietri wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's anything like obstruction of justice under US law. If you were right, then so too would be recognizing a face from a wanted poster and not calling the police. It isn't even obstruction of justice if they explicitly ask you something and you refuse to respond: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/what-do-when-encounter... So I don't see how not responding to a question they didn't ask could be il…

It's a blurred line though. If the police know that the perpetrator was in line of sight of your camera and they knew you had the footage, then not giving it to them is a lot closer to obstruction of justice than the example you gave. I'm no lawyer but I'm sure a competent one would be able to argue either side.

If they have a warrant, sure.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#220

Post by kortilla »

mikepurvis wrote: post #84
fpgaminer wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who tends to fall on the side of privacy more often than not, I'm actually not sure how I feel about facial recog+home security cameras. I'm completely against any fully automated system where the police can have access to the camera's data. But on the other hand, what if the system was implemented completely locally, and all with the owner's control and permission? So your Ring app pops up and says "Hey,…

I'm a four season bike commuter, and have been wearing a helmet cam for the past year or so— it's just breathtaking the amount of small violations I catch on camera: I don't even go looking for them or dwell at hotspots, and I pick up probably 5-10 instances per week of things like cars turning right on red without fully stopping, going through stop signs without fully stopping, not fully yielding to pedestrians in c…

You can change lanes in a roundabout on dotted whites...
Post reply on HN